Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto: > Andrea Aime wrote: >> Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto: >>> In 2D+1, is the main difference that the third dimension ignored by >>> some operations, such as coordinate transforms? I suspect 2D+1 will >>> be OK for line-strings, except when you try to change datum. >> >> Indeed. However there is no guarantee that the third dimension is >> going to be a Z. What if it's an M? (measured shapefiles?) > > Not to mention XYZM, where Z could be depth, or could be two-way-time, > and M is a measure (e.g. seismic sample index). Do you plan to support > 2D+2?
My plan is to allow support of 2D+n, no matter what the extra dimensions are: - they will be preserved on transformations (as you say, the meaning of the extra dimensions can be anything, so custom code would be needed to transform them anyways) - it will be up to the code using them to decide if to use them and what to do with them Mumble... we probably want some kind of descriptor of what the dimensions are... like, a GML encoder can encode all the dimensions it wants but, does it make sense to encode the M in the GML? Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Aime OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
